1. The defendant shall pay 180,000,000 won jointly and severally with D.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 16, 2002, D obtained a loan of KRW 150 million from the Plaintiff with general funds for business operation, and the Defendant, as D’s wife, visited the Plaintiff bank to the extent of KRW 180,000,000,000 for the said debt, as a joint and several surety (Korean collateral guarantee).

B. The Plaintiff filed an application with D and the Defendant for the payment order under this Court No. 2010 tea329. On January 28, 2010, this Court issued the payment order and on January 28, 2010, “D shall pay the amount of KRW 265,579,678 and the amount of KRW 126,519,116 at the rate of 19% per annum from January 19, 2010 to the date of complete payment. The Defendant jointly and severally with D, paid the above amount within the limit of KRW 180,00,000,” and the said payment order became final and conclusive on February 13, 2010.

C. On December 13, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant payment order against D and the Defendant for the interruption of extinctive prescription.

As of December 5, 2019, claims for the principal and interest of loans are 126,407,896 won, interest 237,534,98 won, total of 503,003,446 won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the defendant is a joint and several surety for the principal obligor D's obligation, and is obligated to perform the obligation of the loan of this case against the defendant. Since it is apparent that the principal and interest of the debt against the plaintiff of the principal obligor D exceeds the Defendant's limit of continuing guarantee, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 180,000,000, which is the limit of continuing the extinctive prescription claim, to the plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant asserted that he was not aware of the plaintiff's joint and several liability claim against the defendant at the time.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the joint and several liability claim of this case is non-exempt claim because the defendant did not enter it in the list of creditors in bad faith.

Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.